United States District Court, S.D. New York
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER
J. NATHAN, DISTRICT JUDGE.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. brings various claims for patent
infringement against Defendant P3 International Corporation.
On September 22, 2017, the Court denied Defendant's
motion for judgment on the pleadings and for an award of
attorney's fees. Dkt. No. 116 [hereafter, "September
22 Order"]. Now before the Court is Defendant's
motion for reconsideration of the September 22 Order. Dkt.
reasons set forth below, Defendant's motion is denied.
Court assumes familiarity with the matter, the factual
background of which is more fully described in the
Court's September 22 Order. See Dkt. No. 116.
November 16, 2016, Defendant P3 International Corporation
filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings with respect to
two of the seven patents at issue in the amended complaint.
Dkt. No. 19. In its motion, Defendant relied on matters
outside of the pleadings with respect to each patent at
issue. As a result, the Court faced a choice between
excluding the materials or converting the motion into one for
summary judgment per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(d).
addressing Defendant's motion on the '207 Patent, the
Court acknowledged that it could have elected to convert the
motion but declined to do so, citing two main reasons. First,
the Court found that although Plaintiff did acknowledge the
possibility of conversion in its opposition brief, the Court
could not be sure that each party had a "full and fair
opportunity" to present its arguments on summary
judgment. Dkt. No. 116 at 6-7 (quoting First Fin. Ins.
Co. v. Allstate Interior Demolition Corp., 193 F.3d 109,
115-16 (2d Cir. 1999)). Second, the Court noted that at the
time the motion was filed, Plaintiff had not yet had any
opportunity for discovery and found that discovery would be
relevant to Plaintiffs defense against summary judgment.
Id. at 7. Given this, the Court concluded that
Plaintiff should be allowed to seek discovery with respect to
the purported prior art before the Court entertains a motion
for summary judgment. Id.
respect to Defendant's motion on the '626 Patent, the
Court rejected Defendant's arguments on both grounds
asserted. The Court first found that Plaintiff had alleged
sufficient detail so as to give Defendant fair notice of its
claims of infringement, denying Defendant's argument that
Plaintiff had failed to adequately state a claim.
Id. at 8. Second, as with Defendant's motion on
the '207 Patent, the Court found that Defendant's
argument that 35 U.S.C. § 287(b)(2) precluded any chance
that Plaintiff would receive a remedy for any infringement of
the '626 Patent by importation relied upon evidence
outside of the pleadings. Id. at 9. The Court again
exercised its discretion in declining to convert the motion
into one for summary judgment, finding that Plaintiff should
have the opportunity for discovery into Defendant's
inventory or importation history. Id.
rulings then, the Court did not address the merits of
Defendant's contentions, but merely determined it
premature to consider the extraneous evidence and convert the
motions into those for summary judgment. Approximately one
month after the Court's September 22 Order was issued,
Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn, who has ably overseen the
parties' many discovery disputes, set a schedule for the
close of discovery and for summary judgment practice. Dkt.
No. 127. Fact discovery closed on November 3, 2017, and
expert discovery closed on December 29, 2017. Id.
Summary judgment motions from each side are due in the first
months of 2018. Id.
this established schedule, which Defendant knew Judge Netburn
was about to set at the time it filed the present motion,
see Dkt. No. 122, Defendant moves the Court for
reconsideration of its September 22 Order.
Standard of Review
Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and Local Civil Rule 6.3 govern
motions for reconsideration, and are intended to "ensure
the finality of decisions and to prevent the practice of a
losing party examining a decision and then plugging the gaps
of a lost motion with additional matters." Medisim
Ltd. v. BestMed LLC, No. 10-CV-2463 (SAS), 2012 WL
1450420, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 23, 2012) (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted). The standard for granting
a motion for reconsideration "is strict, "
Analytical Surveys, Inc. v. Tonga Partners, L.P.,
684 F.3d 36, 52 (2d Cir. 2012), because "reconsideration
of a previous order is an extraordinary remedy to be employed
sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of
scarce judicial resources." In re Health Mgmt. Sys.,
Inc. Sees. Litig., 113 F.Supp.2d 613, 614 (S.D.N.Y.
2000) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). For
this reason, "[a] motion for reconsideration may not be
used to advance new facts, issues or arguments not previously
presented to the Court, nor may it be used as a vehicle for
relitigating issues already decided by the Court."
R.F.M.A.S., Inc. v. Mimi So, 640 F.Supp.2d
506, 509 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (quoting Davidson v.
Scully, 172 F.Supp.2d 458, 461 (S.D.N.Y. 2001)).
Instead, "[a] motion for reconsideration should be
granted only when the defendant identifies an intervening
change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence,
or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest
injustice." Kolel Beth Yechiel Mechil of
Tartikov, Inc. v. YLL Irrevocable Trust, 729 F.3d 99,
104 (2d Cir. 2013) (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted); see also Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70
F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995).
Defendant's Motion Simply Relitigates Decided Issues and